Church of Our Savior v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Mun. Corp.

CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR, formerly known as Resurrection Anglican Church, Inc.,a Florida Nonprofit Corporation, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-cv-1346-J-32JBT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Dated: July 18, 2014

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Church of Our Savior wants to build a church on private property in Jacksonville Beach. Citing incompatibility with the neighborhood, the City of Jacksonville Beach will not allow it to do so. The Church claims the City's actions violate its federal right to be free from religious discrimination.

After initially pleading eight causes of action alleging violations of its constitutional and statutory rights and then facing a motion to dismiss, the Church has now pared back its claims into a five-count amended complaint. For many of the same reasons it found the first complaint lacking, the City finds the second attempt inadequate and has again moved to dismiss. The Church, for its part, finds the City's motion improper and urges the Court to deny it and levy sanctions against the City'slawyers.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Church

The Church of Our Savior, formerly known as Resurrection Anglican Church, was founded in 2006 as a Florida nonprofit corporation with the stated mission "to revel in and share the grace that God has shown them" by encouraging members of the community to attend the Church's religious services.¹ (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, Doc. 32.) The Church's services include bible studies, service to the homeless and to nearby schools, and worship services on Sundays and holy days. (Id., ¶¶ 10-11, 13.) In May 2013, Resurrection Anglican Church and Calvary Anglican Church merged. (Id., ¶ 13.) For this and other reasons, the Church has seen substantial growth since its founding.² (Id., ¶¶ 10, 12-13.) The Church currently holds its Sunday services in the Beaches Museum Chapel, a historic wooden chapel, which the Church rents from the Beaches Historical Society. (Id., ¶¶ 14-15.) The Church represents that its rental arrangement limits its ability to schedule services as it wishes or make changes to thestructure to fit the Church's needs. (Id., ¶15.) For the past two years, the Church has used a facility next to the chapel for its administrative offices and meeting rooms, for a Friday women's bible study, for choir practice, and for educational activities. (Id., ¶¶ 16, 19.) Other church activities are apparently held in local restaurants or church members' homes. (Id., ¶¶ 17-18.) According to the Church, this arrangement has impacted its ability to attract new members and hold weddings, funerals, and classes, and has created logistical problems in setting up Sunday services. (Id., ¶¶ 20-23.)

B. The Property

The Church leadership decided to address these concerns and look for "one ideal location for all of the Church's religious activities." (Id., ¶ 25.) In early 2012, the Church identified property for sale at 2092 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville Beach, Florida (the "Property") that it thought fit the bill. (Id., ¶¶ 26, 32.) The crescent-shaped property is actually two parcels of land, separated by a strip of city-owned land.³ (Id., ¶ 27.) The Church has purchased an option on the Property and hopes to build a church facility on it. (Id., ¶ 31.)

C. The Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code

The Property is currently zoned "Residential, single family (RS-1)" under the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code ("LDC").⁴ (Id., ¶ 33.) The LDC establishes a total of thirteen zoning districts "to ensure that each permitted andconditional use is compatible with surrounding land uses, served by adequate public facilities, and sensitive to natural and coastal resources." LDC Secs. 34-321, -322. Each district has certain "permitted uses" and "uses accessory to permitted uses" that are allowed in the district as of right and certain "conditional uses" that may be allowed upon submission of an application for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") and the review and approval of the planning and development director and the planning commission. LDC Secs. 34-41, -221 to -236, -321.

The RS-1 zoning district "is intended to classify areas suitable for low density single-family residential development." LDC Sec. 34-336(a). "Single family dwellings," "[p]ublic and private parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities," and "Type I home occupation"⁵ are uses permitted as of right on property zoned RS-1. Id. at (b). Permitted private parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities cannot be for commercial use, however, and are restricted to "the sole use of residents living in the area where such facilities are located . . . ." Id. at (b)(2). Conditional uses on property zoned RS-1 include, among other things, "[r]eligious organizations" and "[p]ublic and private elementary and secondary schools and technical institutes, excluding trade schools and vocational schools." Id. at (d).

"Religious organization means a structure or place in which worship, ceremonies, rituals, and education pertaining to a particular system of beliefs are held." LDC Sec. 34-41. Out of the City's thirteen zoning districts, religious organizations are conditional uses in all five residential zones (RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RM-1, and RM-2) and three of the five commercial zones (CPO, CS, CBD), are permitted as of right in the other two commercial zones (C-1, C-2), and are not permitted at all in the City's industrial zone (I-1), redevelopment district (RD), or planned unit development district (PUD). LDC Secs. 34-336 to -348.

Uses listed as conditional in a particular zoning district are eligible for a CUP, but are not guaranteed to receive one. LDC Sec. 34-223. Instead, the planning and development director and the planning commission are supposed to evaluate each application for CUP based on a set of eleven general standards and the standards of the particular zone in which the CUP is requested. Id.; see LDC Sec. 34-231. To receive a CUP, the property owner submits an application with certain required information to the planning and development director. LDC Secs. 34-225, 226. The director reviews the application for initial sufficiency, and, if it is sufficient, prepares a report on the application and schedules the application for a public hearing before the planning commission. LDC Secs. 34-228, 229. At the hearing, the planning commission reviews the application and the director's report, hears any public testimony, and then issues an order approving the application, approving it with conditions, or denying it. LDC Sec. 34-230. The LDC does not include any review mechanism where the applicant can appeal the commission's ruling to the full city council or some other city body. Instead, according to the City, denials or approvals with conditions must be appealed to the state circuit court through a petition for writ of certiorari. (See Doc. 40 at 2.)

D. The First CUP Application

The Church submitted its first application for a CUP in early March 2013. (Doc. 32 at ¶ 39.) The Church proposed building a one-story, 7,440 square foot building with a more than 200-person capacity sanctuary and additional space, with the southern part of the Property proposed as a children's play area for the congregation. (Id., ¶ 29.) The Planning and Development Department staff prepared a report recommending approval of the application. (Id., ¶¶ 42-43, Ex. 10.) The report states that the proposal of a church is not inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and "represents a reasonable low intensity use of the undeveloped parcels surrounding the City's lift station, and would serve as transition between the soon to be developed commercial parking facilities to the east, and the Hopson Road neighborhood to the west and south." (Id., Ex. 10.)

On April 8, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application.⁶(Id., ¶ 45.) The planning department staff read the report and a representative for the Church made a presentation. (Id., Ex. 13.) The hearing was then opened to the public, at which point the Church's reverend and the project architect addressed the proposed building's height. (Id.) Five residents from the neighborhood around the Property spoke in opposition to the proposal. (Id.) The Church's representative then was permitted a rebuttal, and the reverend answered additional questions. (Id.) Planning Commission Vice Chairperson Terry DeLoachexpressed his concern about the proximity of the project to the surrounding residences, its compatibility with the neighborhood, and its effect on property values. (Id.) The Commission then unanimously voted to disapprove the application. (Id.)

E. The Second CUP Application

Though the details are unclear, the Church and the City apparently discussed options for moving forward. (Id., ¶ 47.) In August 2013, the Church submitted a second application for CUP. (Id., ¶ 48, Ex. 14.) The application was the same as the first, except the children's play area on the southern parcel was now designated as a park open to neighborhood children. (Id., ¶ 48, Ex. 14.) The Planning and Development Department again recommended approval, for the same reasons as before. (Id., ¶ 51, Ex. 16.)

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the second application on September 9, 2013. (Id., ¶ 49, Ex. 16.) A representative of the Church again made a presentation, highlighting the change to the designation of the southern parcel and the Church's intention to stay small and be respectful of the community, and answering questions from Mr. DeLoach. (Id., Ex. 16.) The hearing was then opened to the public, when some individuals spoke in favor of and answered questions about the project while a number of potential neighbors and Commissioners expressed concern or opposition. (Id.) The Commission then again unanimously voted to deny approval. (Id., ¶ 52, Ex. 16.)

On September...